Yesterday I made the 270 mile round trip from Stratford to Oldham to do my bit to help our candidate in Thursday's by-election.
I spent some time out delivering (just under 150 leaflets delivered by my own good hands) and hung out in the campaign HQ for a bit whilst I finished up some work and helped out.
The big question on everyone's lips coming through the door was how's it going, are we going to win? To which I'm afraid the answer from those within the campaign was a rather limp, "yeah, it's good, it's ok, we'll see" . This was the impression I was left with overall about the campaign, there was just a lack of energy. I know much has been made of the perceived lack of support from CCHQ but in my view there was just a lack of energy from the campaign team at the HQ, nothing to do with central support. It certainly didn't feel like our campaign HQ did 4 days before polling day and we were a safe seat.
As far as central Party support goes Baroness Warsi was there when I arrived and telling someone she would be there all week, and I saw a few familiar MP faces coming through the door. There certainly wasn't a lack of support from activists from all over the country as well, who were turning up throughout the day, all keen to help our guy get elected and to not help the Lib Dems.
Speaking of Lib Dems their posters were everywhere (apparently only having gone up this weekend). As I drove to my delivery area I only saw Lib Dem posters in front gardens. If they're behind in the polls it's not affecting the support of their core voters and activists who are still keen to show their allegiance. I also saw a UKIP billboard (Interestingly with an anti-immigration not anti EU message) and two pubs proudly displaying large UKIP posters on their outsides. There was also a smattering of Labour posters on a few houses (a vote for Labour is a vote for fairness apparently), but not a single Conservative poster. (the large ones were going up that day, but I think it's the garden ones that matter. Where were the local Conservatives showing their support?)
In terms of other activists I saw a group of 4 Labour activists out and about proudly wearing their rosettes and clutching literature, but no Lib Dems and no other Conservatives. To be fair they could have been there but hardly anyone from our side was wearing a rosette (I wasn't offered one, but brought my own) which coupled with the lack of posters made the campaign feel somewhat invisible on the streets. The fact that people seemed to be being sent to delivery areas individually, and only in groups if they came as a group also meant less impact in an area. In my view you want the residents of an area to know the campaign has arrived when it rocks up to a street, even if all it's doing is delivering leaflets!
And there lies another concern for me, the efforts of all these imported activists and MPs are being used just to deliver leaflets. Presumably they have a canvas from May, but things have changed a lot since then, or maybe they've already completed one earlier in the campaign. Regardless you've got MPs (and activists) who have successfully convinced voters on the doorstep to vote Conservative who aren't getting the chance to do that in Oldham. You have to ask is this the best use of such a valuable campaigning resource?
Also in terms of targeting resources, I'm a big fan of targeted campaigning. Trying to match your message to an area and its demographics is important, but this didn't seem to be happening with literature. To an area filled with massive houses with stunning views and BMWs and Mercs on the drive I was delivering a leaflet on how Labour want to tax lower earners to keep child benefit for higher rate taxpayers (I.e we've taken away your child benefit), whilst back at the HQ someone was coming back from delivering a leaflet on the housing benefit cap to an area of social housing (this leaflet didn't really go down very well, was her feedback). The process of campaigning, i.e we must deliver 3 bits of literature to every household, seemed to be taking over from an intelligent campaigning approach, which was a little disappointing.
So in conclusion how's it going to go? Difficult to call, and the polls don't tell the whole picture, there's one thing to tell a pollster how you'd vote in advance but I think on election day in the booth, the fact you're not electing a government but just am MP to represent you might change things. If that's the case then local issues will take over (a post on that tomorrow).
Bootnote: Something I was disappointed in was the fact that as I arrived (along with a few more people) Kashif Ali our candidate was there, but he then disappeared off without introducing himself or thanking those who had journeyed to help him. It's a small but important point for candidates. You may be tired, you may be focused but you've got to thank those people who are working for you.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
That's Mr Prime Minister to you Ed
The beginning of the second series of The West Wing depicts how, then Governor, Bartlett, got elected for the first time and how his team of advisors came to be. There’s a fantastic scene where his early advisors (who are subsequently sacked in favour of Josh, Sam and Toby) are telling him that he has to stop calling his opponent by name. “Well what should I call him then” cries a frustrated Bartlett. “My Opponent, or the Senator from ...” they reply.
The point being that using your opponent’s name just helps the public to know who he is, increases brand awareness for them, and therefore doesn’t help you.
It’s an interesting idea and clearly someone on Ed Milliband’s writing staff was given the West Wing box-set for Christmas and has got to the beginning of series two in their break. However they’ve decided to take a different message from it.
Regular blog readers will know I love to Wordle a speech or article to see what the key words are and last week Ed Milliband wrote a piece for the Times in which he attacked the “Conservative Deceit” over the deficit. The piece has been taken apart left right and centre for just how wrong, and indeed deceitful it was, but what interested me was the way he talked in it.
There wasn’t one primary word that popped out above the others (see below), but there were instead a handful of common words, Labour, VAT, growth, Osborne and most interestingly Mr.
It turns out that every time he referenced the Prime Minister or Chancellor he called them either Mr Osborne or Mr Cameron and this is something I’ve seen Labour doing elsewhere as well. Clearly someone in Millband’s team thinks that reminding the public that they are the PM and Chancellor and therefore in charge and therefore making these tough decisions isn’t a good idea. It also to an extent belittles them somewhat and I suspect someone thinks there’s a touch of class warfare in there too.
Bootnote: Interestingly I’ve noticed that Tim Montgomerie has done the same thing in a recent article reviewing the PM’s performance on Marr, only calling him Prime Minister once. Does this say something about how he views the PM as well?
The point being that using your opponent’s name just helps the public to know who he is, increases brand awareness for them, and therefore doesn’t help you.
It’s an interesting idea and clearly someone on Ed Milliband’s writing staff was given the West Wing box-set for Christmas and has got to the beginning of series two in their break. However they’ve decided to take a different message from it.
Regular blog readers will know I love to Wordle a speech or article to see what the key words are and last week Ed Milliband wrote a piece for the Times in which he attacked the “Conservative Deceit” over the deficit. The piece has been taken apart left right and centre for just how wrong, and indeed deceitful it was, but what interested me was the way he talked in it.
There wasn’t one primary word that popped out above the others (see below), but there were instead a handful of common words, Labour, VAT, growth, Osborne and most interestingly Mr.
It turns out that every time he referenced the Prime Minister or Chancellor he called them either Mr Osborne or Mr Cameron and this is something I’ve seen Labour doing elsewhere as well. Clearly someone in Millband’s team thinks that reminding the public that they are the PM and Chancellor and therefore in charge and therefore making these tough decisions isn’t a good idea. It also to an extent belittles them somewhat and I suspect someone thinks there’s a touch of class warfare in there too.
Bootnote: Interestingly I’ve noticed that Tim Montgomerie has done the same thing in a recent article reviewing the PM’s performance on Marr, only calling him Prime Minister once. Does this say something about how he views the PM as well?
Friday, January 7, 2011
Control orders should be replaced... with prosecution
I’m against Control orders. There I said it, now the right wing of the party can call me a Liberal Conservative, but I read Tom Clancy (whose new book
is really rather good and probably as right wing as you can get) and am very much in favour of dealing with the Terrorist threat in a way that works (but then who isn’t).
The problem with Control Orders is that they curtail civil liberties and they are just a replacement for something else, either surveillance or prosecution. The problem is that surveillance costs MI5 money, and isn’t always effective, but then neither are Control orders with 1 in 6 slipping away are you really telling me that if you’re watching someone 24/7 that more than 1 in 6 will get away from you? The other advantage with surveillance is that you can see who else they’re visiting, who else they’re communicating with and pick-up more suspects. Basic Tom Clancy spycraft 101. If the issue is cost or resources then give MI5 more money, you’ll be hard priced to find someone who will vote against more money to catch terrorists, even if it means less money for another area.
However the alternative is obviously prosecution, which is also a powerful tool for disruption. Lawyers and GCHQ have traditionally been against the use of intercept evidence and covertly gathered intelligence in courts but a way around this has to be found so that the judiciary can prosecute, if the evidence is strong enough to take away civil liberties indefinitely then it must be strong enough to prosecute in some way.
But there’s another side to prosecution that is pointed out by Dominic Raab MP on Comment is Free today. In 2007 MI5 stated that there were an estimated 4,000 terrorist suspects and we are always hearing about how many plots are foiled (a number were apparently foiled over Christmas including one which would have involved an attack on Parliament) the threat is increasing however against this are we seeing an increase in prosecutions for terrorism? Or an increase in the usage of control orders? No in the last 4 years prosecutions have reduced by 90% and at present we have only eight control orders the lowest number since their introduction.
As Dominic Raab says prosecution is something both sides of this arguement should be able to agree on. If I was Clegg I’d be announcing that Control Orders are being abolished today in favour of the creation of a new specialists court that allows the use of intercept and covertly gathered intelligence. It’s the sensible choice which can unite both sides of the coalition.
is really rather good and probably as right wing as you can get) and am very much in favour of dealing with the Terrorist threat in a way that works (but then who isn’t).
The problem with Control Orders is that they curtail civil liberties and they are just a replacement for something else, either surveillance or prosecution. The problem is that surveillance costs MI5 money, and isn’t always effective, but then neither are Control orders with 1 in 6 slipping away are you really telling me that if you’re watching someone 24/7 that more than 1 in 6 will get away from you? The other advantage with surveillance is that you can see who else they’re visiting, who else they’re communicating with and pick-up more suspects. Basic Tom Clancy spycraft 101. If the issue is cost or resources then give MI5 more money, you’ll be hard priced to find someone who will vote against more money to catch terrorists, even if it means less money for another area.
However the alternative is obviously prosecution, which is also a powerful tool for disruption. Lawyers and GCHQ have traditionally been against the use of intercept evidence and covertly gathered intelligence in courts but a way around this has to be found so that the judiciary can prosecute, if the evidence is strong enough to take away civil liberties indefinitely then it must be strong enough to prosecute in some way.
But there’s another side to prosecution that is pointed out by Dominic Raab MP on Comment is Free today. In 2007 MI5 stated that there were an estimated 4,000 terrorist suspects and we are always hearing about how many plots are foiled (a number were apparently foiled over Christmas including one which would have involved an attack on Parliament) the threat is increasing however against this are we seeing an increase in prosecutions for terrorism? Or an increase in the usage of control orders? No in the last 4 years prosecutions have reduced by 90% and at present we have only eight control orders the lowest number since their introduction.
As Dominic Raab says prosecution is something both sides of this arguement should be able to agree on. If I was Clegg I’d be announcing that Control Orders are being abolished today in favour of the creation of a new specialists court that allows the use of intercept and covertly gathered intelligence. It’s the sensible choice which can unite both sides of the coalition.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Why Andrew Lansley was right to cancel the vaccination advertising campaign
Lansley has already jumped on Healey for his other comments in relation to choosing not to vaccinate under 5s for what he described as "cost reasons", but has been less strongly defended his decision to axe the annual advertising campaign. He's only said that he didn't believe that an advertising campaign would have made a difference.
Well according to the Interim Chief Medical Officer who was on Radio 4's PM this evening new Department of Health figures show it wouldn't have. Why? Because it turns out that at risk group vaccination levels are now at the same level as last year. In fact if supplied doses of vaccine are anything to go by then 14.7 million doses (roughly last year's number) have been delivered and 98% of them were delivered to GPs for use by the end of November.
In December the uptake rate was seen to be roughly 2% lower than last year which seeing as uptake is now the same was hardly a concern then and certainly isn't now. Also I can't find anything to say if that is 2% lower than last year or December last year which is important. Plus don't forget last year saw mega media coverage thanks to swine flu.
But people have died because the campaign was cancelled Labour supporters scream. However the figures before Christmas don't seem to bear that out with 39 deaths, 38 of them under 65 so not in what is the largest at risk group (although there has today been a horrific case of a recently pregnant woman dying due to complications due to swine flu and pneumonia, and there is now evidence that pregnant women died in the 09/10 outbreaks due to clinical failures to diagnose and treat swine flu quickly enough)
So in my view Lansley made the right choice. Government advertising spending was out of control (up from £59m in 1998 to £232m in 2009) and had to be cut. I've seen two figures for the cost of this campaign one said £1.5m the other £180,000. I find it hard to believe you can get much of a national ad campaign with significant reach for £180,000 though, but even if it was only that, it was still the right choice. If we keep everything just because it doesn't have six zeroes after it the deficit will never come down.
The Labour Twitter Ghetto
I'm a sucker for a great visualisation and yesterday I came across a great one which used Tweetminster's political twitter data to visualise the connections between different groups.
It
It shows some quite interesting features. Firstly that the Lib Dems are far less clustered on Twitter than any party (and far less prevalent as well) but also that Labour Tweeters are far less likely to be connected to other non Labour Tweeters than any others and so are one of only three main clusters. The blogger refers to it as the Left Ghetto.
Not that there isn't some ghettoisation in the Conservative tweeters also but it appears significantly worse for Labour supporters. Why does this matter, well during the election, which was as you may remember Twitter obsessed, Labour were applauded for having the most success with Twitter and therefore winning the online campaign (although of course subsequent research has shown that taking into account Facebook, websites and email this wasn't the case). However this data shows what we always suspected during the campaign, there may have been more people Tweeting from the left, but they were mainly talking to each other, not the public.
The other surprising thing (for him anyway) that came out of this analysis though was that Channel 4 News Presenter Krishnan Guru-Murphy is the centre of the Political Twitter universe, connecting more people to each other than anyone else!
It It shows some quite interesting features. Firstly that the Lib Dems are far less clustered on Twitter than any party (and far less prevalent as well) but also that Labour Tweeters are far less likely to be connected to other non Labour Tweeters than any others and so are one of only three main clusters. The blogger refers to it as the Left Ghetto.
The other surprising thing (for him anyway) that came out of this analysis though was that Channel 4 News Presenter Krishnan Guru-Murphy is the centre of the Political Twitter universe, connecting more people to each other than anyone else!
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Fair fuel stabiliser - you read it here first
According to Cathy Newman of Channel 4 News the Prime Minister just took a question at a Cameron Direct event on high fuel prices and responded with details of the Fair Fuel stabiliser. A conservative manifesto pledge that fuel duty would go up and down in line with the price of oil, thereby stabilising pump prices.
What's slightly strange is I blogged about this just the other day in relation to how to fix the issue that high pump prices correlate to low poll numbers for governments.
What's stranger still is he apparently mistakenly called it the Fuel Duty Escalator (which is the policy that put fuel duty at the levels it's at today) which is what I accidentally called it when I first wrote the post. Coincidence, evidence that the PM reads this blog or evidence that I'm far closer to no 10 than you thought? I'll let you decide!
House Price stability: Why Grant Shapps is right
Never mind that he was restating something he’s said before, the Daily Mail and the right wing Twiterrati went ballistic. He’s anti capitalist they screamed, he wants to play with the market, how can he call himself a Tory?
But let’s face it house prices are over-inflated, you only have to look at the gradient of the house price graph to see that over the past decade they’ve had an unsustainable rise.
Ultimately though house prices are a bubble that government and the Bank of England can’t let burst. Why? Because the owners of the assets in that bubble are so heavily leveraged. Other assets are rarely purchased by such a high percentage of borrowing, so property as an asset is far removed from equities, and isn’t a traditional investment. Ultimately if the bubble bursts then too many loans (read as bank balance sheets) are in negative equity causing significant problems to capital ratios.
They’re also different to equities in other ways too, in that their price is not related to any underlying economic value being created. Although equity values are related to confidence and supply and demand they’re also linked to the success of the company, i.e. the value it added to and created in the economy. If a company generates a large amount of economic activity (turnover) and is efficient and therefore creates a large amount of profit (and hence tax revenues) then its share price goes up and owners of the equities see their initial investment increase in value. Therefore an increase in asset value relates to some underlying economic activity.
However in the housing market this isn’t the case, house prices have just gone up, and up and up, unrelated to any underlying work. Last week I watched a decade of Location, Location, Location with Phil Spencer and Kirstie Allsopp, who gleefully told us that at the height of the boom many people made more money just by owning a house than they did going out to work. What did this mean? It meant that people, got lazy and subsidised their incomes with borrowing from their home which then created an artificial bubble of consumer spending and economic growth that was again unrelated to any real work done in the economy.
So roller coaster house prices are not only pricing an entire generation out of the market they’re economically dangerous. What Grant Shapps is suggesting is right, that house prices shouldn’t really be increasing at a rate greater than inflation or salary inflation, so in real terms they are steady, or perhaps even dropping slowly.
He’s also right to say that government has little control over this market, as it has little control over any market. There’s no chance that it is going to implement a house price regulator (OffHouse anyone?), all it can do is hope that the changes its making to planning rules will increase supply and try to nudge people into using other vehicles for investment purposes. It doesn’t even have control of interest rates to try to stem prices, that’s the job of the Bank of England (who are currently too busy focusing on using them to keep growth going to worry about house prices, and hardly have a great record in the past anyway).
The challenge with this policy though is the same as with nearly any radical policy, communications. Middle England and the Daily Mail will respond to any suggestion that house prices shouldn’t continue to sky rocket with horror and outrage, “it’s our right to make money from our homes, they’re our biggest and best investment, Phil and Kirstie told us so” they say.
The challenge is therefore immense, how do you change an entire section of society’s mindset to the idea that a home is just a place to live not an investment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
